Of all movies released in 2014, 93 percent of them included at least one gunfight.

I have zero statistics to back up this claim, because there are no current stats to be had.

But speaking as a very frequent moviegoer, I can report that a staggering number of US movies in theaters will, at some point, feature a character firing a gun. It’s almost like they’re reflective of America’s complete and total saturation with gun culture, or something.

“The gun is the leading character in the blockbuster Hollywood film,” says filmmaker Abigail Disney, whose new documentary “The Armor of Light” follows an evangelical minister’s journey to preaching against gun violence. “The gun brings in more in box office than George Clooney, Chris Pratt or Quentin Tarantino could ever hope to generate.”

In the face of the latest horrific, deeply saddening story about real-life deaths by gunfire, I’d like to make a modest proposal from the pop-culture desk: Hollywood, how about giving us a year off?

A still from Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film “Inglourious Basterds.”Weinstein Company

Imagine it: a year without any firearms in film. How much would they really be missed? Think back to your favorite recent movies. How many of their most memorable scenes were gunfights? Guns are where a movie goes when it can’t think of anything better to do. They are lazy and dull. They reliably make a movie less fun and more earsplitting.

Jason Statham in “Furious 7”Handout

Take a look back at some recent high-octane box-office champs. Guns are officially the least interesting part of “Furious 7,” “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and “Spy.” “Jurassic World” featured people firing guns, pointlessly, at dinosaurs. “Mad Max: Fury Road” was brilliantly choreographed mayhem involving maniacal pole-vaulting savages, souped-up cars, hand-to-hand combat, kamikaze motorcyclists, a flame-throwing electric guitar — and yeah, some guns (yawn).

Big, dumb guns are so prevalent they’ve come to define what being an American movie is.

“Everywhere I go I find at least one picture or poster or drawing of Rambo — who has become our most effective cultural ambassador for the one way to solve a problem, the only way to approach an enemy, and the most macho version of how to end an argument,” says Disney. “He is the Golden Arches of the gun. And where you see him most is in the places where the conflict has been most intractable and has dropped to levels of depravity that are almost impossible to contemplate: Congo, Liberia, Bosnia, Sudan.”

Not only are guns giving us a bad reputation around the globe, they’re also disproportionately showing up in films that kids can watch. A study from 2013 found there’s more gun violence in movies rated PG-13 than in ones rated R.

And whether you’re a kid or an adult, being steeped in on-screen gun violence isn’t doing your brain any favors, NPR reporter Nancy Shute writes. “There’s lots of research showing that watching violence in movies makes people more aggressive and less compassionate . . . After the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., late last year, Ohio State University psychologist Brad Bushman was talking with Dan Romer, director of the Adolescent Communication Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, about the so-called weapons effect. Just seeing a gun tends to make people more aggressive.”

Jamie Foxx in 2012’s “Django Unchained.”Handout

Of course, not everyone sees it this way. “If the role of Hollywood is to reflect contemporary life — love, war, sex, family, religion, violence, etc. — and interesting history, warts and all,” says National Review writer Charles Cook, “it would potentially cease to be a useful artistic force if it were to stop showing firearms.”

In terms of reflecting contemporary life, with our nonstop cavalcade of deaths by gun violence, he’s right. But maybe our national psyche is damaged enough right now that the most useful artistic gesture would be to — at least momentarily — disarm.